Let's play "Deconstruct the media!" -- America's new subprime shanty-towns

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Brock N. Meeks [bmeeks () cox net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 12:52 AM
To: David Farber
Subject: Re: [IP] America's new subprime shanty-towns

Someone below wonders why he "found out about this [story] from the BCC and
not US media?"  Here's one possible answer:  it's a ginned up report by a
clueless BBC reporter, trying to make news from nothing.

Let's play "Deconstruct the media!"

First, the title, below it says, "America's new sub-prime shanty-towns" as
in plural.  But the piece referenced only shows one "shanty-town" and makes
no reference, whatsoever, to others.  On the YouTube clip it says "Tent
Cities," and of course, as mentioned, only one "tent city" is shown.

This is incredibly sloppy and just plain lazy journalism.  This is like
quoting one expert in a story and writing, "expertS claim..."  Bah.

Next, a number is tossed out--ohhhh, we like numbers!--"in the last month
some 60,000 houses were repossessed."  And then the reporter says, "...now
they shower in a local church and get by on handouts..."  To this I say,
"That must be a damn big church to handle 60,000 households wanting to
shower, just think of the lines!"  Specious, of course.  The reporter makes
it sound like all 60,000 households are now homeless and living in the tent
city.  B.S. -- again, incredibly sloppy journalism.

Next, the first woman interviewed talks about how she hopes to get a full
time job instead of her one-day a week job... she wants to save up to buy a
car to get to work easier.   Sheesh, were to start?!

First, are we to assume she's a victim of the sub-prime meltdown?  I guess,
because there's absolutely no clue that she is.  She has a one-day a week
job, umm.... perhaps her job status is the reason for her homelessness?
Perhaps she lost a good paying job and couldn't make the mortgage payments,
could happen, DOES happen, every day.  But falling victim to a LOUSY LABOR
MARKET has no connection to the sub-prime fiasco.

Second interview, an older couple, now living in an RV, forced from their
home when they could no longer make the payments.  It's a tragic story, a
sad story and I'm not making light of ANYONE'S plight here, remember, it's
the shabby  journalism I'm poking a sharp stick at.

In the same breath that we learn this couple have lost their house, we learn
why:  the husband fell ill and they couldn't make the payments on the house.
I'll repeat it, the husband FELL ILL and the mortgage couldn't be paid.
Again, NOTHING to do with the sub-prime crisis, this is a health related
tragic story.  And again, it happens hundreds or thousands of times a day.
And the story there, perhaps, is the lack of affordable health care or...
??? But not "this poor couple was forced to live in this RV because of the
sub-prime crisis."

The last interview is with a guy that says he sold his house "for a lot less
than I paid for it."  But he didn't take a bath on it, or so it seems,
because he tells the reporter that after the sale, "I settled all my bills
and now I'm homeless."  You don't "settle all your bills" if don't have
equity in the house.

And we can do some arm chair financial planning here and question his
choices.  Um... pay off my bills and become homeless or take that money,
rent a miserably small apartment, thus giving me a valid address which is
critical when applying for a job, for pubic assistance, etc., etc.  And then
while living in the crappy apartment (but infinitely better than living in a
tent city) he could pay minimums on his remaining bills with what money he
has left or try and work out some lower payments with the creditors -- a
standard procedure now happening more and more.

But no, this guy chooses Option A and goes homeless.  Again, tragic story
and again, we are left to assume this guy is a victim of the sub-prime mess,
were as, I'm thinking, doesn't he have a job??  Why would he be homeless if
he had a job?  Oh... I see, he lost his job, which probably means he
couldn't pay his mortgage.  Ah, see, a victim of the LABOR MARKET, not the
sub-prime crisis.

I'm just saying...



On 3/18/08 1:14 PM, "David Farber" <dave () farber net> wrote:
 ________________________________________
> From: Michael Gurstein [gurstein () gmail com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:20 PM
> To: David Farber
> Subject: FW: [Futurework] America's new subprime shanty-towns
>
> Might be of interest to IP...
>
> MG
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: futurework-bounces () fesmail uwaterloo ca
> [mailto:futurework-bounces () fesmail uwaterloo ca] On Behalf Of M.Blackmore
> Sent: March 18, 2008 7:50 AM
> To: futurework () fesmail uwaterloo ca
> Subject: [Futurework] America's new subprime shanty-towns
>
>
> America's new subprime shanty-towns
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnnOOo6tRs8
>
> Posted by Cory Doctorow, March 17, 2008 9:07 PM | permalink
> In this chilling BBC clip, a newsteam ventures to one of LA's new
> shantytowns made up of people who've lost their homes in the subprime
> meltdown and now live in tents, improvised shacks or RVs on abandoned land.
> It's the contemporary Hooverville, and, as the Subliterate Cinephile notes,
> I wonder why I found out about this from the BBC and not US media. Link (via
> The Subliterate Cinephile


-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com